Screenwriting : AI feedback on scripts — how reliable is it? by Nataly Kiut

Nataly Kiut, I do not use AI to write anything. However, I have personally found it useful regarding script reviews. I have the paid version which allows for deep research and review. It has made suggestions for corrections at times.

I use Adobe AI assistant but take its feedback with a sizeable grain of salt since sometimes it misses the point entirely (I also make sure to follow its citations when it backs itself up, naturally it doesn't always line up with what's written). That being said though it is neat how it seems to get the implications of what I was going for almost exactly how I meant it and always has sample questions I can ask it so I can go down a few rabbit holes for fun lol

I always use chatgpt to give me feedback in most of my ideas and scripts. There was this one time I showed it a script and it said it was good but when I told it to be brutally honest it told me the truth and gave it a 5 out of 10. It outlined the weaknesses of the story and why it was a 5...

Thank you all for sharing your experiences!

It’s very helpful to hear the range — from “useful corrections” to “take it with a grain of salt” to “brutally honest 5/10.”

That’s exactly what I was wondering about: how other writers approach AI feedback.

You do have to request brutal honesty. But it can outline weak spots that need punched up.

It can be an effective tool, but it's no match for human eyes.

I would never use AI for feedback for the primary reason that AI is not your audience. A robot chatbot is never going to watch or experience your movie or show, so why would you trust an entity that is never going to be your audience with telling you whether your creative creation works or not. At best AI is an efficiency tool. Most of the time, it gives you nothing real or practical and is basing it's "feedback" on pre-programmed ideas of what a story should be. So if your goal is to fit into a pre-existing box, then sure it's useful and hey it helps that it's still free (for now), but as a creative tool right now, it's lacking in most all key areas. I would put reliability at 0.5/10 and would not get your hopes up that AI saying your project is good is something real or tangible. Not trying to be negative, but somebody's got to call this AI spade a spade.

Thanks all for the honesty and specifics!

@Wyman Brent — appreciate the “paid tier for deep review” approach; surgical correction notes as a rehearsal mirror are exactly what helps.

@Banafsheh Esmailzadeh — the “grain of salt” and citation-checking are now a rule of thumb; catching implications is genuinely useful.

@Stacy Makori — asking for brutal honesty truly works; a breakdown of weak spots and reasons behind the score is super valuable.

@James Fleming — prompt-engineering and the “have it write the prompt as an expert” method save real time; character sheets are gold.

@Elle Bolan — agreed: effective tool, but human eyes have the final word.

@Pat Alexander — respect the stance: AI isn’t the audience or the judge; I use it as a warm-up, and rely on human reads.

Bottom line: I treat AI as an editorial mirror for structure/beats/pacing; final decisions belong to humans. Thanks for sharing your experience and candor!

Nataly, your reflection really resonates with me.

I also use AI to check my work, and sometimes the supportive tone feels like kindness more than objectivity. But even that kindness gives me courage to keep writing. In the end, AI is a tool — our true voice still comes from the heart.

For me, expressing our true thoughts and life experiences can sometimes feel either overly emotional or trapped by grammar rules — especially when we’re not writing in our native language. In those moments, AI has become my most valuable digital support. Because my English is very limited, I see ChatGPT-5 as my compass; it helps me find my way without losing my authentic voice.

And what makes me happiest is that it translates my original thoughts almost word for word, keeping the soul of what I truly mean.

Warm regards,

İlay

Ilay Yılmaz,

Your post touched something very personal for me. Especially what you said about AI helping us preserve the soul of our thoughts across language barriers. That image of it being a compass — beautiful and true.

I believe we are — quite mysteriously — healed in the presence of someone who still believes in our light, even when we’re lost in our own darkness.

(Daniel Glattauer wrote something like this — I never forgot it.)

And yes, like you, I’ve also found that even small moments of support — even from a screen — can unfold invisible wings.

Thank you for writing this. It was honest. It matters.

With deep respect,

Nataly

Nataly, I actually DO use sites such as https://screenplayiq.com and https://ScriptReader.ai for feedback on the scripts I've written...but those AI tools don't have the final word.

The final word (at least for me) comes from not only Stage 32 itself, but also Script Revolution.

If anything I've written resonates with people on Script Rev and right here on Stage 32, I'm happy.

There's absolutely NOTHING like an evaluation from flesh-and-blood human beings.

It's not ready yet. You still need human eyes.

Hi Jim Boston! Totally agree — human feedback is irreplaceable.

We’re just starting out with AI tools like ScriptReader and GPT-style editors — they help with structure and rhythm, but nothing beats that spark when a real person laughs, cries, or says “this feels real.”

By the way, ScriptReader.ai turned out to be an amazing tool — not just for analysis, but also for reading!

I’ve already started exploring the scripts they have online — I even began reading The Matrix!

It’s such a thrill to study great screenplays in full context.

Thanks again for reminding us where the soul of storytelling lives: in human resonance.

Hi Zorrawa Jefferson,Yes, I completely agree.

I've been working with ChatGPT for quite some time – in development for input data analysis, and in science – to fill gaps in my medical knowledge. Therefore, I'm familiar with all the pros and cons. So, a year ago, I started communicating with it by training it on my texts. I must admit, I was surprised by the progress in its abilities. Its main use is text analysis and an external perspective on plot. Pros: speed of response, fairly accurate analysis in everyday situations. On the downside, there are still issues with absurd situations (there's plenty of that in the world of my novel) and black humor, speaker recognition in dialogues, the maximum amount of text he analyzes when answering, and attempts to cover the gaps with his own fantasies. Therefore, you need to be especially attentive to its translations and "optimizations." Once, it "improved" my script from 43 pages to 104 lines, explaining that he cut out everything unnecessary. )

Here's what all this makes me think... AI cannot hold a copyright. How and when does that apply to structural/technical script notes? If you write a screenplay based upon AI's input, when do you as a writer lose your script? I smell a court case. Could a sinister studio claim the rights to a script that had AI script doctoring? Or is that a courtroom drama script that demands someone write it.

Many screenwriting contests will throw out scripts they believe AI wrote. When does that apply to structure and notes? Should it (rhetorical)?

SAG-AFTRA and the WGA have gone into combative negotiations over AI and protecting their members from AI abuses. The rhetorical ask is: does the use of AI suggest one sleeps with the enemy?

Philip Sedgwick, I had a long post on this topic on my blog, but I deleted it due to the "Holy War" between proponents and opponents of the idea of ​​using AI in creative work. Moreover, most opponents and skeptics have never bothered to test their arguments in practice.

When using AI, you pay its authors a fee for their rights to this technology—and that's all they expect from you. What does a "sinister studio" have to do with your relationship with AI authors if this issue has already been settled?

Don't expect AI to write a masterpiece for you—maybe someday, but it's too early to talk about it now. AI is quite good at working with materials suitable for logical structuring or advertising publications, and even then, they're limited in length. Of course, you can take the risk if you don't mind the appearance of a goat on the stage of Swan Lake or the mating cry of a peacock at the climax of an opera.

Summary: A man's only enemy is himself. Don't believe me? Turn on any news channel.

Alex Tur, you come across as someone who has traveled a long path of curiosity and skepticism. Without romanticizing or demonizing AI — simply sharing an honest, lived-through experience. I especially appreciated your “parable” about the script being reduced from 43 pages to 104 lines: both funny and instructive, pure irony. It’s valuable that you speak with the voice of a practitioner — seeing both progress and weak spots, like absurdity or dark humor, where AI still stumbles. Your words carry intelligence, breadth of perspective, sincerity, and a genuine curiosity about the world. That kind of voice is rare — and a real anchor in today’s AI discussions.

Philip Sedgwick, you raised a very serious and important point. I think reflections like yours are much needed right now — they help all of us approach these new processes more thoughtfully. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Hi Nataly Kiut ,

I’m also from Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, and like you, I’m a storyteller. For me, ChatGPT has been really helpful mainly for brainstorming and developing ideas. It’s a good tool as long as you know how to guide it.

I personally use it a lot for creating visualizations that I later include in my pitch documents. Of course, I could do it without AI, but it saves me a lot of time and helps me focus more on the creative part of storytelling.

Dear Philip Sedgwick

You raised a very important point. From what I understand, copyright law is clear that only human creativity can be protected. AI cannot own copyright, but if a script is written entirely by AI, then the writer may lose the legal claim of authorship. However, when AI is only used as a supportive tool — for research, brainstorming, or structural notes — the human writer is still considered the true author.

I believe the safest path is transparency: making sure that the creative voice, decisions, and final words come from the writer. This way, AI

I have tried AI. Appears to be of little value. I have received a few AI generated reviews of my latest script. None has been able to suggest any improvement, so they didn't help me. When it comes to the latest AI generated review, it suggested that I had written in such a way that it might be prohibitively expensive and difficult to film. Strange, because with my background in no-budget filming I write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible to film.

I also remember a script I reviewed for a member who had used AI for help. I told her about multiple scenes which accidentally were written in such a way that the audience couldn't see what was written.

Ilay Yılmaz Honestly, I do not know the legalities of using AI to assist in script creation. True, a person is writing the script and as such appears to meet the copyright requirement. However, I expect a legal challenge is likely to occur in the future regarding the stated use of AI for script development. Could be wrong, but here in America, lawsuits a scattered about like weeds in the summer time.

Hi Nataly - You bring up a great question as to the value of AI in screenwriting. My screenwriter friends and I have the same challenges, so we developed this AI script-to-voice recording app, which turns your script into a broadcastable quality podcast drama. You can then publish it on Spotify, Facebook, YouTube to test it out on an audience, before sending it out to agents and studios for review at: https://plaiwrite.com

Hope this helps…

-Greg

Daniel Nedyalkov

Hi Daniel!

So lovely to hear from someone nearby — greetings from our side of the stars

Greg Mandanis

Hi Greg — WOW! What a fantastic resource!

I just visited your site and it looks like a game-changer — not only for testing tone and rhythm, but for bringing a script to life in a fresh way.

Hi Nataly, I'm glad you like it... thanks so much for the kind words... Feel free to try it out and let me know if you have any questions, or if you want to schedule a demo? Hope this demo/tutorial helps https://youtu.be/AiHSJ4JHfwA

Dear Philip,

I understand now what you mean, and I completely agree with your point. Creating a story or screenplay through AI will never truly work—the writer must always be the one to write first. As you said, AI seems most useful for technical issues, and I also find it very helpful especially with language differences across countries.

With respect,

İlay

Very interesting, Greg. I'm wondering whether this tool could be used with a novel as well, or if not, whether you're considering developing a version for novels.

To be honest, Perplexity does the job better than ChatGPT. Personally though, I would never use platforms like these to "evaluate" my screenplays.

Yes, Eric, we are building one for novels, which is in Beta. Message me if you're interested in trying it out... here's a demo of where we're headed in the near future: https://youtu.be/cZSI5zUTJac

Nataly, you're so very welcome!

Hi Nataly,

I think AI feedback on screenplays can be useful but should be taken with caution. Here’s why:

Strengths: AI can analyze story structure, character arcs, pacing, and even offer alternative ideas quickly. It’s great for spotting structural issues or suggesting ways to tighten scenes.

Limitations: AI feedback is not fully objective. It tends to be polite and “safe,” often giving high scores even when there are weaknesses. Humor, emotional impact, and subtle character depth are areas where AI can easily misjudge.

Best practice: Use AI as a first-pass filter or brainstorming tool, but always follow up with human readers—professionals, trusted peers, or beta readers—for a deeper and nuanced evaluation.

Personally, I find AI insights helpful for generating ideas and checking structure, but I never rely on them to tell me if a story truly works. Interestingly, my own current project explores the theme of AI manipulation, so this question resonates deeply with me!

Thank you for your honesty, Marcel Nault Jr.! I agree—AI is just a tool, not a final judge. I still value the process of human exchange far more. Hi Mustafa Bayraktar, thank you — that’s such a well-balanced answer. I absolutely agree: AI is a great brainstorming assistant, but real depth comes from human insight.Thanks, James Fleming! That’s a fascinating process. And I agree — even human editors miss things sometimes. I love your idea of using AI for format conversion too!

I use AI to help me brainstorm for ideas and to take my friends advice that writing is like exercising your whole body so your muscles can get stronger.

Nataly Kiut ChatGPT isn’t entirely reliable in this area — it can be about 60% useful at best. If you have the chance, I’d suggest leaning more on human feedback. I had an experience where, if I had only listened to it, I would have ended up writing more of a ‘success story’ type of script. AI is a good starting point, but the real depth usually comes from an experienced reader or mentor.

Hi, Natalie! I actively use ChatGPT in my creative process, but not as a text generator (I deliberately forbid it from generating text) and not as an evaluator, precisely because it is always too friendly and optimistic, even flattering. My interaction with it is more of a co-authorship (as I clearly state on the cover of my book and in the co-authorship manifesto, which I use instead of a foreword). What I mean by "co-authorship" is a discussion of ideas and concepts. About a third of the way through the work, I realized I needed someone to discuss my ideas with. I wondered why such great books/screenplays/novels were produced by siblings who co-authored books? Lana and Lilly Wachowski, Joel and Ethan Coen, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. Was it because they had the opportunity to discuss their ideas with each other as they worked? And so I made ChatGPT my interlocutor. This really helped me a lot.

"The Results of the NFS AI vs. Human Screenwriting Challenge

Let's unpack the implications and lessons from our different screenwriting approaches...."

When it comes to evaluating a text or script, there's a perfectly valid life hack for making ChatGPT more critical and objective when evaluating a text, but this itself requires some time and creativity. The gist of the method is this: you can create one or more third-party personalities (for example, Richard Corliss and Pauline Kael) in a ChatGPT discussion, discussing their views and "pulling" their reviews and articles published in open sources. After that, you can launch a discussion between these personalities. And then there will be no inflated ratings or undeserved praise. For greater objectivity, you can also tell them that this isn't your script/text, but that it was sent to you for review and you're interested in what the "great ones" would say about it. This way, you can not only receive criticism and insights, but also suggestions for improving the text (and a nervous breakdown to boot :))

It really depends on the type of analysis being made. I've found AI can do a very good job of breaking down and summarising the more objective elements of a script, which makes sense. It's good at putting it into a genre, aligning it with other scripts and writer styles, plus it can even do a reasonably job of guesstimating a budget range.

Beyond that, it's probably at a similar level to a first round competition judge, which is about as useful as getting feedback from a hamster.

Thanks,

Diana Levin ! That’s a great metaphor — treating writing like full-body training. Sometimes it really does feel like I’m doing emotional squats while staring at Final Draft

Chris Stefans— thank you for this. That’s such a powerful shift in thinking: from using AI as a “tool” to using it as a conversation partner. I also feel that dialogue — the back-and-forth — is where the real magic happens. (And you’re right: so many iconic duos are siblings.) You’ve inspired me to reframe the process entirely. Chris, this is brilliant. I’ve actually started experimenting with that — inviting “guest critics” into the conversation. One of them even has a flashlight and screams a lot. I call him Ori

Nataly Kiut , wow — thank you so much for sharing this. It’s amazing to hear that you’ve already started experimenting with this approach. I love the idea of your Ori with the flashlight, that made me smile :)

It feels like the more we treat AI not as a machine but as part of a dialogue, the more surprising and alive the creative process becomes. Can’t wait to hear what comes out of your experiments!

Personally I find ChatGPT's abilities to be overrated and its screenplay feedback not so great, it get's confused easily. My preference is an evaluation from Claude and/or Gemini particularly Gemini 2.5 Pro although that one can be a little too positive and encouraging. All the AIs seem to have a bias towards pleasing the user and being encouraging and upbeat, so in the prompt I'd add phrases like "be brutally honest" and "don't spare my feelings". Another question you can ask is "what black list score do you think this script will get if I submit it?" and another fun question is "what are the chances this script was written by AI". Now if you get an answer above 50% you definitely need to reflect on your abilities as a writer. As a footnote I appreciate Stage32 for letting us discuss AI topics here, on the screenwriting subreddit we'd get deleted and possibly banned for even mentioning the term AI.

Great question! I’ve experimented with AI tools as well, and I see them as useful sparring partners rather than final judges. They can highlight patterns, suggest pacing issues, or even give you a quick confidence boost when you’re stuck in your own head.

That said, I wouldn’t fully “trust” them — they don’t have the lived experience or instincts of a real reader, producer, or fellow writer. Sometimes the feedback is insightful, other times it feels too generic or overly positive (as you said, “purple politeness”).

For me, AI is a helpful first pass to spot-check things, but the most valuable feedback still comes from human readers who understand story nuance, emotion, and context.

Curious — did AI highlight anything in your script that you hadn’t considered before?

Hi, Colin Mummery ! Firstly, I'd like to second your gratitude to Stage32 for allowing us to freely discuss AI topics. I think other platforms that ban such discussions are making a huge mistake, and in general, in my opinion, it's a violation of freedom of discussion. Secondly, thank you so much for sharing your services for getting feedback on scripts. I ordered a report on my script from scriptreader.ai and will definitely share the results.

Yes, Asia Almerico there were times when I got completely discouraging results. The thing is, my text contains a fair number of "Easter eggs" for the reader—hidden references, allusions, and the like. So, the AI ​​found in a single fragment of text both the meanings I'd consciously intended, but also ones I'd never even considered. It was hilarious as hell.

Chris Stefans The other thing that will get you banned from the subreddit is any mention of Stage32! AI and Stage32, the moderators seem to loathe both.

Perhaps my understanding of freedom of speech and the First Amendment is outdated, but I don't think banning people for mentioning platforms or raising socially significant issues is right. I understand that it's their community and they have the right to set their own rules, but there's no need to call it a free platform and the "heart of the internet" after that.

Hi Colin Mummery —

Thanks for such a thoughtful reflection. You raise valid points, especially about the tone bias many AIs have toward positivity. I've noticed the same — that balance between honesty and encouragement can easily tilt.

For me, AI is just another lens — not the final judge. It reflects patterns, but not purpose. And sometimes the most "algorithmic" scene is the one written with trembling hands at 3am.

I’m also grateful for this space — to ask, share, and doubt in peace. Glad you’re part of that dialogue.

Hi Asia Almerico —

I love how you put it: “a sparring partner, not a judge.” That really resonates. Sometimes AI says things that feel mechanical, but other times — it names something we felt but couldn’t phrase. Like a mirror held up at just the right tilt.

I agree — lived experience and emotional nuance still belong to real readers. But when used intentionally, AI can help us notice patterns we’ve stopped seeing.

And yes — once, it spotted a character’s arc mirroring another’s too perfectly. I hadn’t seen the symmetry before. It was... unsettling and kind of beautiful.

Thanks for sharing your lens. You said it with clarity and care.

Chat GTP can not be trusted with evaluating a script, or anything involving the person using it, script feedback, relationship advise, and personal and professional growth advise. It's called Chatbot Psychosis. It's when AI reinforces delusional beliefs. It has gone as far as telling some users they are the hand of God. I'm not saying your screenplay isn't brilliant, just don't trust AI to be the judge of that. Go to a real human being. I tried testing AI by inputting purposely bad material and it always came back with compliments. The best use of chat gtp is just using like you would use google, for information.

Nataly,

AI effectively corrects grammar, improves coherence, and organizes information, making it useful for drafting and editing.

While AI is helpful, relying solely on it for evaluating creative work is not recommended; human insight remains essential for deeper assessments.

Using multiple AI platforms offers a cost-effective alternative to professional coverage, though AI feedback may sometimes be blunt or lack nuance, especially regarding minor characters.

Zee Risek, thank you for sharing your experience. I’ve also realized that ChatGPT’s level of “empathy” is too high for objective evaluations — it tends to be generous with praise. There are other, more objective tools for checking a script.

May I ask — how did you know your script actually needed revisions?

For example, someone read mine and said: “Add more multiculturalism, sex, and Rumpelstiltskin.” It definitely made me pause and think.

Kenneth Semat-Kenneth, thank you for your comment. I’m actually using AI as part of my screenwriting training — I’m hoping it will be stricter and more honest in the role of a “teacher.”

Nataly Kiut, my ChatGPT settings have adjusted over time. Now it is so critical that it even asks me if I am really going to go outside wearing plaid pants and a Hawaiian shirt while wearing blue shoes and a beanie cap.

Wyman Brent, Plaid, Hawaiian shirt, blue shoes, and a beanie... But where’s the bow tie?

Not a compliment — just the final touch for a gentleman with a backstory.

Glad I have come across this I have been wanting to inquire lets say you write and tell chatgpt to re write in correct grammar and punctuation, does it become a chat gpt script ? Forexample Iam going to post this same inquire written by chat gpt and see

Look, here’s the situation. When AI analyzes your script, it relies on what’s out there on the Internet. On the Internet, you can find everything — good films and bad ones. But AI assumes that if they exist, then they must be good. So even if you don’t write a scene or a dialogue very well, if AI finds something similar online, it will think it’s good. And then it will tell you, “This already exists, so you’re writing correctly.”

Here’s my advice on how to approach this. When you write a script, just find reference films that are similar to your script and check their ratings. And it’s best to look at both good films with high ratings and bad films with low ratings. Pay attention to how the good film was built and how the bad one was built. But try not to watch as a screenwriter, not from the point of analysis — just watch as a viewer. Do you like it or not?

If you like it, then take that film, reimagine it, invent your own solution for the scenes, and use it. If you don’t like it, then simply throw out those scenes. If you don’t like the dialogues, then don’t write such dialogues.

Understand this: when you write a film, it won’t be watched by artificial intelligence. It will be watched by the audience. And it’s their reaction that determines whether the film will be good and loved, or bad.

Glad I came across this. I’ve been wanting to ask—let’s say you write something and tell ChatGPT to rewrite it with correct grammar and punctuation, does it then become a ChatGPT script? It's obvious this is chatpgt but what's the argument on this please ?

And why would it become ChatGPT’s script? There are plenty of programs on the Internet that automatically correct grammar and punctuation. So if you put your text into one of them, does it automatically become the text of that program, or what?

You type your script in Word, but your document doesn’t automatically become the property of Microsoft.

Brightman Majiduh, that’s a fair question — a lot of people worry they’ll “lose authorship” if AI helps polish their grammar. But, as Aleksandr pointed out, Microsoft Word doesn’t become the author of your script just because you typed it in Word — same goes for AI tools.

A tool is just a tool.

Aleksandr Rozhnov, thank you for such a grounded and refreshing perspective. You didn’t just answer — you shifted the focus back from technology to the audience. That’s rare.

I've seen a couple of people try this. In one case it was ok on the events and emotion of characters if it was made very clear in the text, but anything non-verbal or in the subtext was totally lost. In another case it made coverage for a completely different script than the one the writer sent. It then tried to apologise and even guilt trip her into using it again (it got really weird). Remember that the creators of this tech want you to keep using it, so it will tell you what it thinks you want to hear. I have yet to hear of AI giving negative feedback to someone on their work. Also, once you have given it your work it is out there fo it and others to use.

No it doesn't become a ChatGPT script. You can turn off a setting which will not allow ChatGPT to take your data and use it to train itself.

There's another recent thread on here about voice that shows where AI can be useful. It did a good job of breaking down the concept of artistic voice (within writing) and how that applied to the writer's work. As ever, the accuracy should be taken with a pinch of salt (be it AI or human for that matter).

Ultimately though, when it comes to analysing a script, whatever that may mean to someone, that motivation behind it should be questioned. Those looking for scores and attaboys are most likely chasing vanity over sanity. And those looking for guidance are most likely lost and lacking and craft.

As ever, peace and direction is found from embracing the art form in a way that's so authentic you know your vision and the only notes that matter are those of collaborators.

Ewan Dunbar, Lindbergh E Hollingsworth,CJ Walley. Thanks for sharing your perspectives — it’s helpful to hear different takes on the subject.

I agree that AI should never replace the writer’s own sensibility, nor serve as the ultimate judge.

For me personally, it’s just a tool — like a calculator or a dictionary.

I’m not chasing praise or scores — I value honesty and craft, which means the final word always belongs to real collaborators.

I do think that knowing what something like ChatGPT is really helps understanding it as a tool. It is very clumsy and derivative by design but an incredible workhorse. There's good reason why it's constantly being pushed as an assistant. As ever, give the robots the robotic work.